The Court of Appeal has resentenced A.P. after finding that the original sentencing judge should have considered incentivising rehabilitation. It imposed a four-year prison sentence, suspending the final 18 months for two years subject to conditions, including compliance with requirements of Forensic Psychological Services recommended in a report by Dr De Volder.
A.P. had pleaded guilty to one count of sexual assault and one count of exploitation. The Circuit Criminal Court sentenced him in October 2016 to four years on each count, to run concurrently, and directed that he be placed on the Sex Offenders Register. He appealed on the grounds that the sentences were excessive.
The offences occurred in 2011 and 2012, before and after the victim’s second birthday. The judgment states that the victim was A.P.’s daughter. It describes two incidents involving sexual conduct in her presence. The victim later reported the incidents to her mother. A.P. contacted Crime Stoppers, made a voluntary cautioned statement, made admissions after being charged and pleaded guilty at the first available opportunity.
The sentencing judge assessed the headline sentence at seven years and reduced it by three years to four years on each count, concurrently. The judge cited the victim’s age and relationship to A.P., the breach of trust and the impact on the victim and her family as aggravating factors. Mitigating factors included the guilty plea, cooperation, lack of previous convictions, remorse and reports describing A.P. as at low risk of reoffending.
The Court of Appeal said the sentencing approach had been appropriate and that the headline sentence and allowance for mitigation were correct. It found an error of principle only to the limited extent that the sentencing judge had not considered incentivising rehabilitation, given the reports and A.P.’s efforts to address the problems contributing to the offending.
In resentencing, the court considered a prison governor’s report and references submitted after the hearing. It retained the four-year sentence but suspended the final 18 months for two years. The supplied judgment extract ends while describing the conditions, so it does not set out their full terms. The original concurrent sentences and Sex Offenders Register direction are described as prior orders; the extract does not state whether the register direction was altered on appeal.